ORDER                           Dated: 06-10-2016
Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.      The complainant filed this complaint on 13.02.2015 and alleged that
his truck bearing no HR 46 B 3755  was insured by the OP This truck
was hired by Bagai Golden Transport Co. from complainant and loaded
with general goods on 21.02.2009.   This truck was stolen hence
complainant lodged  an FIR no. 243/2009   U/s 379/411/34 IPC  on
01.05.2009 at P.S. Jhangirpuri , Delhi.   He claimed insurance amount
from the OP and despite a legal notice to OP dated 30.09.2014 OP
failed to pay the claim. Hence OP was guilty of deficiency in service.
Hence, it is prayed that  OP is directed to pay Rs. 15 Lacs along with
a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs  as compensation for mental pain, harassment and
Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.
2.      In reply , OP admitted that the complainant’s truck was insured
with OP and it was effective from 11.03.2008 to 10.03.2009. OP denied
rest of the allegations made in the complaint. It was further stated
in the investigation report submitted by the investigator that
employee of the insured himself stolen the truck with conspiracy. On
the basis of this report complainant was asked to submit certain
documents vide letter dated 02.09.2010 ,25.10.2010 ,21.12.2010 and
07.03.2011 but complainant failed to comply the request of OP hence
his claim was closed as “ No Claim”. It is further stated that FIR of
the theft was made to the police station after a period of  68 days.
Hence complainant filed this claim beyond the period of limitation.
Therefore it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.
3.      The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained that
the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of  his complaint
complainant filed his affidavit along with documents copy of
intimation letter as (Ex. CW1/1), copy newspaper report dated
20-03-2009 (Ex. CW1/2), copy of FIR  (Ex. CW-1/3), Copy of insurance
certificate (Ex CW1/4)  copy of status report  (Ex. CW1/5)  and copy
of legal notice (Ex. CW1/6).
4.      In support of reply, OP filed affidavit of Sh. Brij Mohan (Sr.
Divisional Manager) along with documents copy of Detail Investigation
report (Annexure  R-1), copy of FIR (Annexure R-2) , copy of letters
dated 29-09-2010 , 25-10-2010, 21-12-2010 & 07-03-2011 as (Annexure
R-3 to R-6) respectively and  copy of insurance policy as (Annexure
R-7).
5.      Both the parties filed their written arguments.
6.      We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the
parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to
be considered are as under:-
(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?
(b) Whether the complaint is within the period of limitation?
(c) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
(d) Relief.
7.       As OP admitted the vehicle was insured with him and this insurance
was for the loss to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant
hence complainant is a consumer.
8.      OP vide letter dated 07-03-2011(Annexure R-6 ) requested
complainant to file the requisite documents within 7 days otherwise OP
shall be most reluctant compelled  to close the claim file as “No
Claim”.  This letter was not denied by the complainant specifically.
Therefore, in our opinion cause of action in this case arose after 7
days of this letter  dated 07.03.2011 i.e. 14.03.2011.  Complainant
filed this complaint on 13.02.2015  hence he filed this complaint
after the expiry of period of limitation as prescribed U/s 24 A of the
Consumer Protection Act. It is pertinent to mention herein that
complainant did not file application for condonation of delay and as
per the Status Report filed by the SHO Jhangirpuri (Annexure CW1/5)
charge sheet was put in court on 06.09.2010 and supplementary charge
sheet in this case was put in court on 06.08.2012. Looking to these
facts too , complainant failed to file this complaint within the
period of limitation.  Hence, this complaint is time barred.
9.       As this complaint is time barred by the limitation prescribed U/s
24 A of the Consumer Protection Act hence not maintainable and the
remaining points of consideration may not be decided accordingly. Both
the parties will bear their own cost.
10.      Copy of the order made available to the parties as per law. File
be consigned to record room.